The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder, saying that police officers had fabricated a confession, and had severely mistreated another detainee to concoct further evidence.
Held: The appeal was allowed. Had the material regarding the treatment of the second witness been made available it would have raised and suggested the point that the three officers were ready ti use unlawful means to secure the conviction: ‘We are satisfied that it would have provided a real prospect of providing a lead on evidence which would have been material to the issue of bias which was relevant in the case.’ It should therefore have been disclosed, and ‘the Farrell material, which has never been tested, would have opened a line of enquiry which might have affected the credibility of the police witnesses. Because of the non-disclosure the appellant lost the opportunity to pursue that line of argument. We have also concluded that the Bradley material raised evidence of wrongdoing in relation to the giving of evidence in that case by some at least of the police interviewers which may have influenced the assessment of the credibility of those witnesses by the learned trial judge in the appellant’s case.’
Morgan LCJ, Coghlin LJ and McCloskey J
[2013] NICA 33
Bailii
Citing:
Cited – The Attorney-General v Hitchcock 10-Jun-1847
Bias is an exception to the rule against collateral attack on credit . .
Cited – Regina v Foxford CANI 1974
The Crown in opening its case said that it would call two witnesses, but did not do so and only tendered them for cross-examination. That cross-examination produced evidence favourable to the defence, and the witnesses were then re- examined by the . .
Cited – Regina v Keane CACD 15-Mar-1994
Public Interest Immunity Certificates for the protection of informants must be used only carefully. The Crown must specify the purpose of the public interest immunity certificate. The principles on disclosure in Ward are not limited to scientific . .
Cited – Regina v Malik CACD 2000
Lord Bingham said: ‘If there is clear evidence that a police officer, whose credit and credibility are significant in the case before the jury, has been guilty of serious malpractice on an earlier occasion, that necessarily damages his credibility . .
Cited – Regina v Pollock CANI 24-Sep-2004
‘1. The Court of Appeal should concentrate on the single and simple question ‘does it think that the verdict is unsafe’.
2. This exercise does not involve trying the case again. Rather it requires the court, where conviction has followed trial . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Northern Ireland
Updated: 17 November 2021; Ref: scu.513864
